From Washington to the Nation

The state of Washington may soon not be alone in its ban on internet gaming. Republicans in the House are pushing a bill to make that ban nationwide. The bill has made it through committee and will be coming to a floor vote this summer. And predictably, they're trying to sell the bill with two marketing campaigns. The first, of course, is "values":

The majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, announced a few days ago that the measure would be voted on this summer as part of what the Republicans call their American Values Agenda.

The "American Values Agenda", of course, is hauntingly similar to Mencken's definition of puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be having a good time. The second way they're selling this, ironically, is as an anti-corruption bill, specifically anti-Abramoff. Radley Balko explains:

Rep. Goodlatte and Sen. Kyle in particular have attempted to push their bills as "anti-Jack Abramoff" measures, referring to the now-disgraced lobbyist. I debated Rep. Goodlatte on his bill a couple of weeks ago, and was surprised when he spent most of his time talking not about the merits of his legislation, but about how passing his bill would send an important message to the American people about lobbying and corruption in Congress.

If you're wondering what slapping a ban on the millions of Americans who wager money online has to do with the Republican Party's moral shortcomings in Washington, well, so was I.

Apparently, the reasoning goes something like this: "Because of Jack Abramoff, Congress' previous attempts to ban Internet gambling failed. So Congress should ban Internet gambling to show that it's not under the influence of Jack Abramoff."

But in fact, what they're doing now is exactly what Abramoff was trying to do - reduce the competition for the clients he represented against other gambling interests. And of course, just like in Washington state, the mere fact that there will undoubtedly be lots of exemptions is enough to prove that the stated purpose of the bill is nonsense:

As I mentioned, the current gambling bills are complicated. But knowledgeable people on both sides of the debate generally agree that by the time all is said and done, none of these three bills will actually ban Internet gambling. They'll ban gambling for all but those gambling interests that have politically powerful allies in Congress. Which is exactly what Jack Abramoff wanted.

State lotteries, for example, will almost certainly be able to continue to sell tickets online (it's curious how addicted state governments have become to the money generated from those "evil" games of chance, isn't it?). Horse racing is also widely expected to escape any attempt at prohibiting online bets (the anti-gambling crusader Mr. Goodlatte, interestingly enough, has taken some $10,000 in campaign contributions from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association).

Online fantasy football will stay safe, too (previous attempts to ban this growing hobby have met with furious opposition).

What they're doing is precisely the opposite of what should be done. As Balko notes, the online gambling companes are begging to be regulated. They would much rather set up shop in the US and be regulated legally. And that's exactly what the government should do, legalize it, tax it and regulate it to address the concerns they've got about money laundering and the like. Those things are infinitely easier to do with the operations set up on Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or Costa Rica. It would make players less likely to be ripped off with access to US courts and consumer protection laws. But as Balko says, this would require that the Congress treat the American people as adults, able to decide for themselves how to spend their money and how to entertain themselves. Wake me up when that happens.